[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gomp-discuss] OpenMP: Examples 1
From: |
Lars Segerlund |
Subject: |
Re: [Gomp-discuss] OpenMP: Examples 1 |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:38:34 +0200 |
There is a slight problem with the fortran runtime libs, ( which is quite easy
to overcome but anyhow ), the standard specifies that the libs have to be
thread safe ( I think they exclude IO ), which they are not. This can be
handled later however.
I was thinking of collecting some fortran examples and rip some parts out of
the fortran spec. perhaps give the fortran binding module a go.
Thus we would have a gomp.h for C and a module for fortran ready ( there is a
prototype in the spec I jsut have to check it out a bit in conjunction with
gfortran ).
/ Lars Segerlund.
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:13:05 -0400
Scott Robert Ladd <address@hidden> wrote:
> Lars Segerlund wrote:
> > The OdinMP compiler did compile for MPI as one of its targets.
>
> Good!
>
> I'm working up the basic for/do-loop examples in C and Fortran 95 today.
> I'll try to post those over the weekend.
>
> ..Scott
>
> >
> > / Seger.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:59:40 -0400
> > Scott Robert Ladd <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Lars Segerlund wrote:
> >>
> >>> Scott, you are my hero :-) ... don't give up !
> >>>
> >>> Excellent, stuff like this is what we need.
> >>
> >>Thanks for the support!
> >>
> >>
> >>> A question though, does it sound reasonable that we should go for support
> >>> for both threads & MPI ? This would mainly concearn the lib(s), and
> >>> perhaps we have to stay out of trouble during the implementation.
> >>
> >>A tricky question. OpenMP tends to be associated with low-latency
> >>parallelism, while MPI and PVM represent various forms of message
> >>passing mechanisms. In some cases, people have tried to write mixed MPI
> >>and OpenMP programs, where the distributed nodes are multiprocessor
> >>systems. One of the ASCI machines (I forget which color) uses
> >>multiprocessor nodes connected via a high-speed network.
> >>
> >>I think we should just stick to low-latency parallelism in GOMP;
> >>otherwise, I think we're mixing what some people see as apples and oranges.
> >>
> >>..Scott
> >>
> >>--
> >>Scott Robert Ladd
> >>Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
> >>Software Invention for High-Performance Computing
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Gomp-discuss mailing list
> >>address@hidden
> >>http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gomp-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gomp-discuss mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gomp-discuss
> >
>
>
> --
> Scott Robert Ladd
> Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
> Software Invention for High-Performance Computing
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gomp-discuss mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gomp-discuss